Nuclear Energy Making an Ultimate Comeback?

The energy industry is changing all right, but it might not be headed in the direction you are expecting. Think our country will rely completely on renewable energy? Think again. Nuclear power may actually be making its greatest comeback yet.

Out of the 31 countries that have commercial nuclear power, the U.S. possesses the most nuclear capacity and generation, and it doesn’t seem to be slowing down. For the first time in 30 years, two new reactors have gained construction approval. In February 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Southern Company’s request to construct two new nuclear reactors at its Vogtle Plant in Georgia, to be operational by 2017.

As of the beginning of 2012, the NRC has applications for 28 new reactors. The review process is extremely detail-oriented and typically lasts between 30 and 60 months. Although construction usually takes about 6 years, the Energy Information Administration projects that “the industry will add approximately 19.1 gigawatts (19,100 megawatts) of new nuclear capacity during the period 2012 to 2040, with 11.0 gigawatts coming from new reactors and 8.0 gigawatts coming from uprates of existing plants.”

Yes, there are some areas for concern, but studies have shown that nuclear power plants emit very little carbon dioxide when compared to coal plants. A large 1,250 megawatt nuclear power plant will emit roughly 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide in its lifetime. That may seem like a large amount, but how does that number look after you hear that coal-fired plants produce almost 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year in the U.S.?

Additionally, nuclear power plants eliminate other sources of pollution such as soot, which causes lung disease, as well as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen, which lead to smog and acid rain.

Robert Stone, creator of the nuclear power documentary Pandora’s Promise, shared his view, “Global warming today is real and increasingly threatening our way of life and our future. As Mark Lynas showed in his book Six Degrees, unless we drastically curb greenhouse gas emissions within a decade, temperatures will likely climb within this century to levels not seen on Earth for 50 million years. This threat challenges us all to get out of our comfort zones and reconsider our opinions.”

Even though the Obama Administration partially trimmed the use of nuclear reactors after the Fukushima disaster, it seems like nuclear energy is here to stay. Since 1990, nuclear power has been responsible for supplying at least 20 percent of electricity in the U.S. every year. In comparison, wind and solar account for only 2 percent of U.S. energy.

Also taking part in the development of the nuclear industry is Bill Gates, former CEO of Microsoft. By funding a start-up called TerraPower LLC, his goal is to transform nuclear reactors into smaller, safer, and cheaper sources of energy. The company is working with Chinese scientists to come up with a design requiring no enriched uranium. Its fuel would actually be depleted uranium, which will greatly reduce nuclear waste output.

Much of the population has strong opposing views on the use of nuclear energy. Some support every aspect of it and others cannot understand why it is still being used in today’s world. As the government remains in favor of nuclear power, today’s advanced technology should ensure citizens that proper safety precautions will be taken. Stone explains that we should keep an open mind with this powerful source of energy, “Given that nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases, and given the world will need to triple its energy production by 2050, it only makes sense to give nuclear energy a second look.”

Sarah Battaglia has been one of the in-house Copywriters and the Social Media Manager for NRG Business since 2011. Born and raised in Buffalo, NY, Sarah holds a Bachelors degree in Business Management and Marketing from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Out of the office, she has a passion for baking delectable desserts, cooking for her family, and riding her bike. Sarah can be ...

There is a lot of considered thought and opinion on this subject. No matter where you stand on nuclear, we need to STOP burning fossil fuels as soon as possible. If we continue on the path to 450 CO2 ppm and beyond, and the permafrost starts to thaw and release gobs of methane, all this debate about nuclear, or renewables, will have served no purpose. We simply have no time to waste, and people don't seem to get it.

"it needs to she shut down ever 18 months to refule." The plant near me shuts down for 25 days every 24 months to "refule" and perform maintenance that can't be done online. It has a 91.3% capacity factor.

"all the deadly watse is stored on site." Show me an example of a single person who has been harmed, let alone killed, by this "deadly watse".

"Why don't you live next door to a Nuclear plants?" I do.

"Why don't you have a Nuclear power system at your home?" I would in a heartbeat if the government would let me.

"I have Solar and it runs my entire 100% electric home, car and the power company pays me since I made more than I uses each entiire year !" You lie about as well as you spell.

"...nuclear power plants emit very little carbon dioxide when compared to coal plants..."

In fact, nukes emit less CO2 than wind or solar with natural gas backup (e.g. a 50/50 mix). If we want to reduce emissions by 10, 20, or 30%, we have lots of options (ie. efficiency, natural gas, renewables). For deep reductions (60-90%), nukes are the only cost effection solution (renewables need several breakthroughs to economically match this).

Nukes also can go beyond electricity, and supply industrial process heat (e.g. for chemical processing, biofuel processing, desalinization, etc), for less than the cost of natural gas in many countries (wind turbines and solar PV panels simply can't do this, they only make electricity).

The fossil fuel industry wants us to fear radiation, because they fear the nuclear competition.

This story feels like it landed here straight from 2006, heyday of the idea that an affordable nuclear renaissance was nigh, given high-cost natural gas, and predictions that power demand was on track to grow by a third in the next few decades.

Now none of that is true: the reactors under construction are seeing huge costs overruns; gas is cheapr; and power is actaully falling. If we're after a lower carbon fleet, better to put the tens of bilions new nukes would cost towards efficiency programs, and you'll get a far greater economic multiplier, both near-term and over the long-run.

In the WSJ, Rebecca Smith has covered this issue repeatedly. Two days ago, in fact, she pointed out that the sum of these forces suggest that six, or eight, reactors may be shut down for financial reasons, because it may cheaper to replace their capacity with natural tgas, rather than cover recommissioning, refuelling and other costs.

I don't expect any/many more nuclear plants to close after Kewanee. Any that do are making a foolish, seriously shortsighted decision. There's another year or two, at most, of cheap natural gas prices. They may not get really high (over $10/MBTU), for awhile anyway......, but they will probably be around $6, which is more than enough to keep any existing nuclear plant running. Even new nuclear units like Vogtle and Summer are more than likely to be a cheaper option than gas over the 60-100 year life of the plant, for any utility that deigns to take a long-term view.

It is clear that US natural gas prices will go up, for four reasons:

1) It's current costs are 4-6 times lower than those of oil, on a per-unit-energy basis. Significant fungibility of oil and gas make this unsustainable. Plans to use gas as a vehicle fuel or convert it into liquid fuel are being made as we speak.

2) Gas (LNG) is selling for 3-4 times the US price (i.e., ~$12 and $16 per MBTU) abroad, in places like Europe and the Far East. This is also unsustainable. Plans to export US gas are being made as we speak.

3) The price of gas is extremely sensitive to the balance of demand and supply, and current low gas prices are largely due to demand supression from the economic depression we've been in. The economy is now recovering. This will lead to significant gas price increases all on its own.

4) Finally, and perhaps most significantly, is that it actually costs far more than current prices to even extract shale gas, with a price of ~$6/MBTU required to maintain profitability in most shale plays (regions). As a result, drilling and leasing activities (and rig counts) have been falling for gas. (Many rigs are going over to oil, which is much more profitable.) Selling prices that are below the raw cost of production are clearly not sustainable.

In addition to the above reasons is the fact that (long overdue) regulations and higher standards on fracking activity will add measurably to fracking costs.

As for efficiency, yes it is generally the cheapest option, but there are limits to what almost all experts predict will be achieved, even with significant efforts. Demand will still climb, slowly, and we will need significant capacity to replace a large amount of closing coal generation. Finally, I love how people, when pressed to make an economic case, always point out that conservation is cheaper than nuclear, but not that it is (also) cheaper than their pet energy sources (usually renewables). Conservation is cheaper than all generation options, including gas (at least in theory).

Lastly, the Vogtle and Summer plants are NOT experiencing "huge" cost overruns. In fact, their costs are coming in under projections (largely due to lower than expected interest costs).

Past is precedent. It's unfair to suggest that long-term price risk for natural gas is a deal breaker, without acknowledging nuclear's parlous track record for containing all manner of costs, from licensing, to construction to decommissioning -- the last of which is still largely unkown and seems far more likely to be higher than estimated, rather than lower. Cost overruns averaged 207% for plants built built in the decade to 1977, accordig to the CBO, from a table cited in the Hidden Costs of Electricity (2012), and exceprted below:

6.1 Cost and Planning Risks of Nuclear Plants

The cost overruns that caused the flight from nuclear in the U.S. were dramatic: many units ended up taking years longer to build than expected and costing three times the original estimates or more. Table 12 presents data from the Congressional Budget Office showing the average cost overruns at projects commenced between 1966 and 1977.

In recent years, several new nuclear projects have been proposed in the U.S. The industry is focused on controlling costs and reducing construction periods with standardized reactor designs and streamlined permitting. However, the experience to date is not promising.

Progress Energy’s two-reactor project in Florida was originally projected to be online by 2016 at a cost of $17 billion. The latest estimate is an online date of 2024 and a cost of $22.5 billion, or roughly $10,000 per kW (Progress Energy 2010).

In late 2010, Constellation Energy scrapped plans for a new reactor at Calvert Cliffs after finding the terms of a Government loan guarantee unacceptable (Economist 2010).

The effort to develop two new reactors at the South Texas plant was scrapped in April 2011. The project being developed by NRG and Toshiba, and the disaster at Fukushima was cited as the key reason for the abandoning the project. However, cost escalation had already put the project in a precarious position: cost estimates had risen to $18 billion, or $6,700 per kW, and another partner, CPS Energy, had already reduced its share from 50% to 7.6%. NRG has written off its $331 million investment in the project (Souder 2011).

Georgia Power’s original (2006) cost estimate for the 2-unit expansion at the Vogtle plant was $14 billion, or roughly $6,400 per kW. The company has not officially revised this estimate since 2006. (Georgia Power experienced cost overruns of approximately 300% on a real-cost basis for the original Vogtle units.)

As with coal projects, utilities can often begin charging ratepayers for a new nuclear plant before it is in service, and in Florida and Georgia, laws have been passed ensuring that utilities can do this. This shifts the risk of project delays or cancellation from utilities to consumers. Customers are already paying for the two new units proposed in Georgia and the four proposed in Florida. One Florida newspaper estimated that ratepayers would pay over $750 million in 2011 alone (Sun Sentinel 2011), despite the fact that Florida Power and Light has said it will decide in 2014 whether or not to build two of the units. The ratepayer backlash has been significant in these states: a bill to overturn the cost recovery law was introduced in the Florida Senate in February 2012, and although the bill failed, consumer groups are planning to challenge the costs at the State Supreme Court.

My comment was about existing nuclear plants, for which none of your comments about nuclear plant construction are applicable.

Yes, there is nuclear plant construction risk and there is risk of huge price increases in natural gas. Those two risks (as well as costs) need to be weighed, while neither is necessarily a "deal breaker". There does, however, appear to be short term thinking going on among utilities (some, at least), which, of course would play to gas' advantage. Closing a paid for nuclear plant with decades of life left is certainly an example of short term thinking.

In addition to this, however, are market factors that favor gas over nuclear, in both the regulated (rate base) and merchant markets. (And I'm not even talking about excessive nuclear regulation, thousands of times as strict as those applied to fossil fuels, fracking's blanket exemption from the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts being just one example).

In the regulated market, increased fuel (e.g., gas) costs are simply passed on to the ratepayer, no questions asked. If cost overruns occur during nuclear plant construction, the PUC *may* disallow the costs (due to "imprudency"), and not allow then to be passes on to the rate payer. (Apparently, there is nothing "imprudent" about being almost 100% exposed to gas, and having the price of gas - predictably - increase). Thus, for the regulated utility, choosing gas is the zero risk option. For the ratepayers, however, it is the more risky option, over the long run. Once built, a nuclear plant produces power at at a very low, predictable (unvarying) cost, and acts as a hige bulwark against overall electricity price increases.

In a merchant market, the market price for power rises and falls with the price of natural gas (a gas plant being the last incremental supplier that sets the market price). Thus, again, for the utility a gas plant is the low/no risk option since the power price rises and falls with their fuel cost, i.e., they get to just pass all costs on to the consumer. A nuclear plant, with high upfront costs and a relatively fixed generation cost (once built), is a much higher risk (although perhaps higher reward) option for the utility. If gas costs go up, they make huge profit. If gas prices fall, they lose their shirt.

As for the customer, the price they pay rises and falls with the price of gas (assuming the very last supplier is usually a gas plant), regardless of how much of the generation profile is nuclear. If anything, though, the gas option is somewhat worse for consumers even in the merchant market, because the more gas we use, the higher the cost of gas (and the market power price) will be. Perhaps that some of the real reason for utilities enthusiasm for gas......

All I'm saying is that utilities considering shutting existing nukes should take a longer term view and understand that current gas prices won't last. It would also be nice if PUCs in regulated markets also considered denying the passing on of fuel costs, if gas prices go way up, since relying mostly on gas is equally "imprudent". And, of course, reasonable regulations on fracking at some price on CO2 would be nice as well.

Adam - It is true that natural gas prices are low today, but I don't know of anyone who can predict with any degree of certainty what the prices will be in 20, 30 or 40 years. On the other hand, we can predict what the cost to operate a nuclear power plant, built today, will be in that time. This is because the price of operating a nuclear power plant is only slightly related to the cost of uranium.

Taking a long view it is obvious that nuclear power will be the primary energy source for mankind in this century. Nothing else even comes close to making sense. The 'problems' with nuclear are based on misunderstandings or are self-inflicted. After the fossil-fuel age will come the uranium (and thorium) age. Once China's nuclear construction program is really geared up, it will become obvious to everyone.

I could write pages on why nuclear energy should not be an option, citing the nuclear "effluent" which is radiation released during the daily operations of nuclear power plants; and citing the radioactive waste which 20,000 generations will be paying to store; and citing that the U.S. only utilizes 8.26% of nuclear energy according to a Lawrence Livermore chart.

But the best thing to do is to read the headlines on a highly recommended site to understand why nuclear energy can be so wrong for any country:

w w w (dot) e n e n e w s (dot) c o m

In addition, Renewable Energy is the ONLY option if a country wants to be truly INDEPENDENT.

With Renewable Energy, a country is not reliant on uranium, oil, or gas, where prices and availability are variable and expensive.

Wind farms can be built quickly. Solar farms are running efficiently around the world.

And as far as jobs: Renewable energy created over 700,000 jobs in Europe.

The "effluent" from US nuclear plants is orders of magnitude too small to have any impact on public health or the environment. No govt. agency or respected scientific body recognizes any health impacts from US nuclear plants, under normal operation. Nobody is getting more than 0.1% of what they get from natural background sources.

The costs of handling and disposal of the (miniscule) nuclear waste stream, under impeccible standards that are orders of magnitude more strict than those applied to any other waste stream, are completely covered by a charge of only 0.1 cetns/kW-hr that is applied on all nuclear electricity.

Nuclear is the only waste stream for which demonstration of containment (with no significant public health consequences) for as long as it remains hazardous is required. Most other industrial waste streams will pose a much greater hazard to distant future generations, due to their orders of magnitude greater volume, their much harder to contain physical form (liquids, gases and sludges, vs. a ceramic material sealed inside corrosion resistant rods), and the fact that they are disposed of with infinitely less care.

Future generations will not be paying anything to store nuclear waste, any more than they will be paying for any of our other waste streams. Once the repository is loaded an sealed (that process being entirely funded by the fee on nuclear electricity discussed above), it will not require any more monitoring. It will be no different than any of our other waste stores (e.g., garbage landfills) in that respect. (Actually, many landfills probably should be monitored.......)

I'm guessing that "poster" buys into the apparent notion (held by many) that all non-nuclear wastes magically become non-toxic after some short period of time. This notion/assumption is completely unsupported by the facts. Many other waste streams contain significant amounts of (chemically) toxic elements that never decay away (i.e., last far LONGER than nuclear waste). The difference is that we just don't seem to care (about very-long-term hazard) for all non-nuclear waste streams. It is the (impeccible) requirements on nuclear waste that are unique, not the long-term hazard.

One example is the toxic elements (arsenic, cadmium, telluride....) present in the spent solar cells that "poster" so strongly supports. Given that these elements never decay away, the volume of waste material is thousands of times larger, and spent solar cells are almost certainly not disposed of (or handled) with anywhere near the care that is applied to nuclear waste, it is probable that the very long term risks (to distant future generations) from the solar PV waste stream are actually greater than those posed by nuclear power's waste stream.

I have no doubt you could write them - the question is, would there be any validity to them? Judging from the website you have cited as authoritative, I would think not.

"citing the nuclear "effluent" which is radiation released during the daily operations of nuclear power plants"

Why don't we introduce you to a concept called "science"? Get a geiger counter and a couple of one-liter bottles. Go to a nuclear plant of your choosing and take samples of water and air as close as you can possibly get. Then take samples 10 miles upstream or upwind. See any difference? Now go to a grocery store of your choice and buy a big bunch of bananas and a big bag of Brazil nuts. Run your counter over them. What do you find? Please report back.

"and citing the radioactive waste which 20,000 generations will be paying to store"

If certain politicians and antinuclear radiophobes would get out of the way we could reprocess and extract useful materials out of this "waste", ensuring energy self-sufficiency for centuries, and reducing the volumes by a factor of twenty and the decay time (to equal the activity of the rocks it came out of) to 300 years.

"and citing that the U.S. only utilizes 8.26% of nuclear energy according to a Lawrence Livermore chart"

Don't know which chart you are looking at, but we are indeed under-exploiting our already-mined fissionable resources, and the answer again is recycling. Dr. Barry Brooks has estimated that the value of electricity that could be extracted from once-used nuclear fuel in next-generation reactors is several trillion dollars. See bravenewclimate(dot)com

With our energy security at risk, and our declining financial resources, we should be focusing on enhancing our nuclear power options and moving as fast as possible to fourth generations nuclear tech like the LFTR.

Unfortunately, the way it is now we'll end up buying LFTR's from China after throwing away billions on unreliable non-baseload renewables.